LeBon (1896/1908) claimed that the individual’s behaviour was modified from a civil and rational manner to animalistic behaviour (LeBon, 2001 and Gough & McFadden, 2001). Other psychologists (e.g. Festinger, Pepitone & Newcomb, 1952) developed LeBon’s notions on crowd behaviour to establish the ‘deindividuation’ theory. Zimbardo (1970) expanded the concept by arguing that while being in crowds, people feel anonymous and therefore lack a feeling of responsibility. Subsequently, the individual loses their personal identity, and therefore is not consciously aware anymore (Festinger, et al., 1952; Hayes, 1993 and Hogg & Vaughan, 2011). Being in a crowd, free from constraints and self-control, leads to an unpredictable, impulsive and violent behaviour
…show more content…
The most obvious difference between the deindividuation theory and the ESIM is the issue of identity. The deindividuation approach assumes that people in crowds lose their personal identity, whereas, the ESIM states that the social identity is changed into a shared identity amongst crowd members (Drury & Reicher, 2000). Drury and Reicher (1999) consider crowd events as intergroup encounters. Accordingly, it is crucial to consider the different perspective of each group involved in crowds to understand crowd behaviour. A different view is held by supporters of the deindividuation theory who concentrate on the individual (Hayes, 1993). Three ideas of the SIT have been further developed within the ESIM. Firstly, the notion of social identity was redefined, stating that it is changeable according to changes in social relations and actions. Secondly, the ESIM emphasises that behaviour, especially in crowds, is strongly influenced by the context formed by out-groups. Lastly, the ESIM highlights the relation of identity, intention and consequence. One group can have certain intentions, but its behaviour can be interpreted differently by the out-group which then acts in ways the first group did not expect, therefore creating another reality for the first group. Subsequently, the first group changes its actions (Drury …show more content…
Initially, the individual in a crowd acts accordingly to its social identity implying the appropriate actions in this situation. For instance, individuals in a demonstration see themselves as responsible and the police as impartial and act in a corresponding way (Drury and Reicher, 2000). By contrast, the deindividuation approach emphasizes the importance of emotions in crowd members (Diener & Wallbom, 1976). The next aspect is the significance of out-groups which may interpret the crowd’s intentions differently than they actually are, forming a new context for the in-group. The deindividuation theory, on the other hand, does not consider the out-group as a factor for people’s behaviour within crowds. The third element to consider is the asymmetry in attitudes, so the difference in the crowd members’ self-perception and how the out-group sees the crowd members. If the out-group has the possibility to execute its assumptions and the crowd members perceive this action as illegitimate, they alter their social location. The altered social location leads to a persistent change of social identity which brings about new actions (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2000). A contrasting assumption was made by supporters of the deindividuation approach who argue that it is a momentary change. Similar views are held when
The most obvious difference between the deindividuation theory and the ESIM is the issue of identity. The deindividuation approach assumes that people in crowds lose their personal identity, whereas, the ESIM states that the social identity is changed into a shared identity amongst crowd members (Drury & Reicher, 2000). Drury and Reicher (1999) consider crowd events as intergroup encounters. Accordingly, it is crucial to consider the different perspective of each group involved in crowds to understand crowd behaviour. A different view is held by supporters of the deindividuation theory who concentrate on the individual (Hayes, 1993). Three ideas of the SIT have been further developed within the ESIM. Firstly, the notion of social identity was redefined, stating that it is changeable according to changes in social relations and actions. Secondly, the ESIM emphasises that behaviour, especially in crowds, is strongly influenced by the context formed by out-groups. Lastly, the ESIM highlights the relation of identity, intention and consequence. One group can have certain intentions, but its behaviour can be interpreted differently by the out-group which then acts in ways the first group did not expect, therefore creating another reality for the first group. Subsequently, the first group changes its actions (Drury …show more content…
Initially, the individual in a crowd acts accordingly to its social identity implying the appropriate actions in this situation. For instance, individuals in a demonstration see themselves as responsible and the police as impartial and act in a corresponding way (Drury and Reicher, 2000). By contrast, the deindividuation approach emphasizes the importance of emotions in crowd members (Diener & Wallbom, 1976). The next aspect is the significance of out-groups which may interpret the crowd’s intentions differently than they actually are, forming a new context for the in-group. The deindividuation theory, on the other hand, does not consider the out-group as a factor for people’s behaviour within crowds. The third element to consider is the asymmetry in attitudes, so the difference in the crowd members’ self-perception and how the out-group sees the crowd members. If the out-group has the possibility to execute its assumptions and the crowd members perceive this action as illegitimate, they alter their social location. The altered social location leads to a persistent change of social identity which brings about new actions (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2000). A contrasting assumption was made by supporters of the deindividuation approach who argue that it is a momentary change. Similar views are held when